While my investigation into what makes a good wedge confirmed some important things contributing to wedginess, there were still a few variables left untested. I test them now.
But first, another myth that got me thinking. Somebody (not proper-noun Somebody) said that either piercing or concussion does more damage than the other depending on whether it hits the chassis or a component.
It makes sense, too. There should be
some difference between piercing and concussion, right? Otherwise why not just use a single damage stat?
Fortunately, I still had the original test bot that I used when I came up with the current damage potential formula (DP = 183.9P + 100C). So it was a simple matter to make some adjustments to the Test Spike (the iron spike component on the bot) and test this myth.
First I did two tests on a bare chassis, both with a 100-DP weapon, but one had all piercing damage and the other had all concussion damage. According to the formula, 0.5438 piercing gives you 100 DP. If the formula is correct, 0.5438 piercing and 0 concussion should do the same damage as 0 piercing and 1 concussion.
The results: taking the average of 5 trials, the piercing weapon did 95.4 damage, and the concussion weapon did 88.6 damage. It would appear there is a slight bias towards piercing, but no conclusions can be made just yet.
Next, I put a component over the top of the target bot (named Buster, appropriately). I used Lu-Tze's kevlar sheet because it's big and flat.
The results: taking the average of 5 trials, the piercing weapon did 130 damage, and the concussion weapon did 124.8 damage.
There was a clear overall increase in damage, but there is no significant difference between piercing and concussion against either the chassis or a component. By all indications, piercing and concussion are interchangeable. And, this myth is BUSTED.
Moving on to more wedge myths. The first one is that putting pressure on the wedge (which is done by lowering the angle of the burst motor below the wheels, so the bot's weight forces the wedge up) makes it better. This is something I think we all just take for granted, but does anyone really KNOW whether it's true? I certainly didn't before I tested it.
Fortunately, I still had the original test bots I used for the first wedge tests. This time I made them both exactly the same, except with Subject A, the wedge was lowered only far enough to touch the ground, while on Subject B, the wedge was lowered as far as it would go without propping up the chassis.
I tested the bots the same way as the first time. Put both bots in the Small Arena, drive them straight forward, and tally who gets under first.
I did 20 trials, switching the bots' positions after number 10 to ensure that starting position had no effect. The results: Subject B got under Subject A 15 out of 20 times, or 75%.
It appears that putting pressure on the wedge does indeed make it better. But, in true Mythbusters fashion, "If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing." For the next test, I moved the wedge well below the wheels so that it propped up the chassis while keeping the bot driveable, and pitted it against Subject A.
The results: Subject A got under Subject C 10/20 times, or 50%, and vice versa. The wedges are exactly the same amount good, meaning that Subject C is also worse than Subject B.
So putting pressure on your wedge does make it better,
but only to a point. You don't want to overdo it or your wedge will be no better than one with no pressure at all. The trick is probably in finding each bot's "sweet spot".
So this myth is CONFIRMED... to a point.
The last myth I'm testing is that a wedge with a steep angle is worse than a low wedge. You know those vertical Snapper 2's you can either mount with the axle up high or down low? Everyone uses the low axle for wedges, and when someone uses the high axle everyone tells them to flip it. But is it really necessary? Since when have you actually tried a bot with a steep wedge?
For this, I used the same procedure again.
And the results: Subject D got under Subject E 13 out of 20 times, or 65%.
It's not as huge as the pressure test, but angle definitely does make a difference. And this myth is safe to call CONFIRMED.